Abstract
This is a study of the interaction of economic doctrine, political practice and the train of events during difficult days for the British economy. The period was also a crucial one in the development of economic thought.
Gone is that gold, the marvel of mankind,
And pirates barter all that’s left behind.
No more the hirelings, purchased near and far,
Crowd to the ranks of mercenary war.
The idle merchant on the useless quay
Droops o’er the bales no bark may bear away;
Or, back returning, sees rejected stores
Rot piecemeal on his own encumber’d shores:
The starved mechanic breaks his rusting loom,
And desperate mans him ’gainst the coming doom.
Then in the senate of your sinking state
Show me the man whose counsels may have weight.
Lord Byron
The Curse of Minerva (1811)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On the post-war years to 1819, consult R. J. White, Waterloo to Peterloo (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968).
A relevant study is Oliver MacDonagh, A Pattern of Government Growth, 1800–60 (London: MacGibbon &; Kee, 1961).
The definitive collection of his works, together with a wealth of biographical information, is Piero Sraffa (in collaboration with M. H. Dobb), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, I–X (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953–5).
Concerning the link between Ricardo’s thought and the appearance of a new style of civil servant, see S. E. Finer, The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London: Methuen, 1952), esp. 19–27.
See, e.g., Elie Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (London: Faber, 1952) 340–2.
F. W. Fetter, ‘The Rise and Decline of Ricardian Economics’, History of Political Economy, I, 1 (spring 1969) 72.
Cf. J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1954) 471–2.
Henry Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, Second Series (London: Knight, 1839) 189.
T. W. Hutchison, Positive Economics and Policy Objectives (London: Allen &; Unwin, 1964) 134–6.
Quoted in Ralph W. Hidy, The House of Baring in American Trade and Finance: English Merchant Bankers at Work, 1763–1861 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949) 48.
Mark Blaug, Ricardian Economics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958) 150.
Consult A. W. Coats, ‘The Role of Authority in the Development of British Economics’, The Journal of Law and Economics, VII (October 1964) 88–95.
S. G. Checkland, The Rise of Industrial Society in England, 1815–1885 (London: Longmans, 1964) 342.
See also O. MacDonagh, ‘The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: a Reappraisal’, The Historical Journal, I (1958) 52–67.
A. Briggs, The Age of Improvement (London: Longmans, 1959) 201.
For a more comprehensive account, consult M. Blaug, op. cit. Four more recent studies of relevance are: T. Sowell, Classical Economics Reconsidered (Princeton University Press, 1974);
D. P. O’Brien, The Classical Economists (Oxford, 1975);
R. V. Eagly, The Structure of Classical Economic Theory (Oxford, 1974);
M. J. Gootzeit, David Ricardo (Columbia, 1975).
See also A. W. Coats (ed.), The Classical Economists and Economic Policy (London: Methuen, 1971).
D. P. O’Brien, J. R. McCulloch, a Study in Classical Economics (London: Allen &; Unwin, 1970) offers numerous important insights.
See also, Donald Winch (ed), James Mill, Selected Economic Writings (Edinburgh and London: Oliver &; Boyd, 1966).
On the politics of reform, consult John Cannon, Parliamentary Reform, 1640–1832 (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Arthur J. Taylor, Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-century Britain (London: Macmillan, 1972) 36.
Cf. Mark Blaug, op. cit., 69–71. The manner in which revision could upset the simple model is explored in P. D. Groenewegen, ‘Three Notes on Ricardo’s Theory of Value and Distribution’, Australian Economic Papers, 11, 18 (June 1972) 53–64.
O. St Clair, A Key to Ricardo (London, 1957) 120
T. De Quincey, The Logic of Political Economy (Edinburgh and London: 1844) 203, 204.
J.R. McCulloch, ‘Political Economy’, Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1824) VI, 313–9, and D. Winch, op. cit., 262–3.
On this issue see S. Hollander, ‘Ricardo’s Analysis of the Profit Rate, 1813–15’, Economica, n.s. 40 (August 1973) 260–82.
See, e.g., J. R. McCulloch, The Principles of Political Economy (Edinburgh and London: 1849) 217.
W. Stark (ed.), Jeremy Bentham’s Economic Writings, 1 (London: 1952) 121–90.
D. Hunte, ‘Of Money’, Economic Writings, ed. E. Rotwein, (London: 1955) 38.
M. Dobb, Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith (Cambridge University Press, 1973) 66–7.
On the nature and significance of Ricardo’s methodology consult N. B. De Marchi, ‘The Empirical Content and Longevity of Ricardian Economics’, Economica, 37 (August 1970) 257–76.
Cf. P. V. Mini, Philosophy and Economics (Gainesville, 1974) 89–95.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1976 Barry Gordon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gordon, B. (1976). Introduction: Politicians and Principles. In: Political Economy in Parliament 1819–1823. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-02119-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-02119-2_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-02121-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-02119-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)